Chinese pay toxic price for a green world

Ghost Estate · 18-02-2011 12:45am

I think the anti-wind turbine crowd on here just don't like the look of them and will go to the ends of the earth to scrape up any few shreds of evidence that there might be something wrong with them.

Chloe Pink · 20-02-2011 12:18pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Your constant referral to the need for “back-up” generation implies that wind is being put forward as the silver bullet to solve all our energy needs, to be rolled out in isolation without a requirement for supporting thermal/nuclear generation and that, by extension, only in this scenario is wind generation cost-effective. But of course, nobody has put forward any such proposal and the costing of wind generation includes the fact that it co-exists with other generating technologies.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re right, the cost of “back-up generators” have not been factored in, because they are a completely flawed concept.

Your posts above contradict each other; the fact that two of the reports cited in this thread by Macha, do not include the cost of "co-existing generators" or "back up generators" and see fit to state as much as a limitation of their methodologies, might help clarify the situation and show both of your above statements to be incorrect i.e.
- the costs have not been factored in contrary to your first post above
- and the cost of "back-up generators" or "co-existing generators" is not a flawed concept contrary to your second post above, as it is deemed necessary to include reference to "back-up generators" or "co-existing generators" in the limitations of the methodologies

Chloe Pink · 20-02-2011 12:28pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

One problem with nuclear is the huge investment upfront which means there will always be a temptation to keep it running to recover the costs, specially when you consider how much it would cost to decomission the plant.

Windfarms should be a bit easier to recycle

Your post above makes it sound as though wind generators are an alternative to nuclear generators (rather than additional to).

Chloe Pink · 20-02-2011 2:22pm

Ghost Estate wrote: »

I think the anti-wind turbine crowd on here just don't like the look of them and will go to the ends of the earth to scrape up any few shreds of evidence that there might be something wrong with them.

The "look of" wind turbines isn't an "anti wind turbine crowd" thing; it's a key consideration for planners and the planning inspectorate when a wind turbine planning application comes before them; they have to consider whether the benefits outweigh the harm caused by the wind turbines.

The "Landscape impact" and "Visual impact" of wind turbine planning applications has led to many of them being refused at both district, county and inspectorate levels.
Other consultees such as National Parks, Natural England, and English Heritage, are also called upon to comment on the "look of " wind turbine planning applications.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-02-2011 1:15am

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Your post above makes it sound as though wind generators are an alternative to nuclear generators (rather than additional to).

Both could be used with pumped storage.

I'm tired of pointing out that the average economic reactor size is about 40% of our base load. We don't have the capacity to cover for an extended outage of a ONE reactor that size. When the neighbours sort out their reactors and are able to export cheap electricity over the interconnecter then look again.

In the meantime nuclear is pie in the sky here. Even if it was economic and there was political support and the unions weren't against it you are still looking at the guts of 15 years before it produces power.

Also if the experience of the US is anything to go by it might be cheaper to reduce electrical demand by insulating buildings and refining building codes to reduce demand than sink a lot of capital into a possible white elephant.

maninasia · 21-02-2011 7:39am

Something that produces most or all of the electricity the country needs could hardly be described as a 'white elephant'. But I agree that the likeliehood of a nuclear plant going ahead in the foreseeable future is doubtful, let's see how energy prices go up shall we?

djpbarry · 21-02-2011 9:26pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Your posts above contradict each other; the fact that two of the reports cited in this thread by Macha, do not include the cost of "co-existing generators" or "back up generators" and see fit to state as much as a limitation of their methodologies...

Let’s make this really simple. Suppose I build myself a 3.5 MW wind turbine at a cost of € [latex]X[/latex] to offset my electricity builds. Suppose the turbine produces, on average, 700 kW. Let’s say the turbine has a lifespan of 20 years. Let’s say that, over the turbine’s lifetime, I spend 10% of the original installation cost ([latex]X/10[/latex]) on maintenance. The cost of producing 1 kWh with my turbine will be approximately:

[latex]\displaystyle\frac{1.1 X}{700 \times 24 \times 365 \times 20}[/latex]

If this works out less than the likely cost of purchasing the equivalent amount of electricity from the national grid over the same time frame, then the turbine represents a good investment.

At what point do I need to factor in “back-up generators”?

Now, I can also factor in the fact that occasionally, let’s say 5% of the time, the turbine will produce more electricity than I need – I’m going to be generous and give it to my neighbours for free. This will obviously increase the cost of each kWh that the turbine produces, but once again, I have no need to consider any “back-up” generation in estimating the cost of this electricity to me.

MalteseBarry · 21-02-2011 11:08pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Let’s make this really simple. Suppose I build myself a 3.5 MW wind turbine at a cost of € [latex]X[/latex] to offset my electricity builds. Suppose the turbine produces, on average, 700 kW. Let’s say the turbine has a lifespan of 20 years. Let’s say that, over the turbine’s lifetime, I spend 10% of the original installation cost ([latex]X/10[/latex]) on maintenance. The cost of producing 1 kWh with my turbine will be approximately:

[latex]\displaystyle\frac{1.1 X}{700 \times 24 \times 365 \times 20}[/latex]

If this works out less than the likely cost of purchasing the equivalent amount of electricity from the national grid over the same time frame, then the turbine represents a good investment.

At what point do I need to factor in “back-up generators”?

Now, I can also factor in the fact that occasionally, let’s say 5% of the time, the turbine will produce more electricity than I need – I’m going to be generous and give it to my neighbours for free. This will obviously increase the cost of each kWh that the turbine produces, but once again, I have no need to consider any “back-up” generation in estimating the cost of this electricity to me.

The problem occurs when your turbine is not producing any electricity. That's likely to happen quite often, perhaps even about 70% of the time.

At those times, when the wind is not blowing sufficiently to produce electricity, you have two choices.

1) Have no electricity to power your fridges, freezers, television, computers and so on, and just do without, (the point you need to have some backup), or

2) Have some sort of backup to ensure you can power your domestic appliances

djpbarry · 22-02-2011 12:20am

MalteseBarry wrote: »

The problem occurs when your turbine is not producing any electricity. That's likely to happen quite often, perhaps even about 70% of the time.

But I've already taken that into consideration - I'm installing a 3.5 MW turbine which I expect will produce 700 kW at any given point in time, on average.

MalteseBarry wrote: »

At those times, when the wind is not blowing sufficiently to produce electricity, you have two choices.

1) Have no electricity to power your fridges, freezers, television, computers and so on, and just do without, (the point you need to have some backup), or

2) Have some sort of backup to ensure you can power your domestic appliances

But at present, I'm drawing electricity from the national grid. If I install a wind turbine, I will draw less electricity from the grid - I never said anything about becoming totally reliant on the turbine.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-02-2011 1:13am

not sure if it happens here but in the North of England there was a time when for some companies their most productive activity was not using electricity. They had contracts and it was cheaper for the utilities to pay them not to use electricity than generate it for them.

There are alternatives to needing backup generators, sometimes it's easier to ask big users to ease off at points of peak demand.

MalteseBarry · 22-02-2011 8:54am

djpbarry wrote: »

But at present, I'm drawing electricity from the national grid. If I install a wind turbine, I will draw less electricity from the grid - I never said anything about becoming totally reliant on the turbine.

So the national grid is your backup. Fair enough.

djpbarry · 22-02-2011 10:03am

MalteseBarry wrote: »

So the national grid is your backup. Fair enough.

You're missing the point. If I build myself a wind turbine, I don't need to build a "back-up" generator alongside and factor in the associated expense into a cost-benefit analysis - the "back-up" already exists. The only costs I need to consider are the cost of installing the turbine versus the likely cost of electricity on the national grid over the turbine's lifetime - there are no other "hidden" costs that I am omitting from my (admittedly slightly simplified) analysis.

MalteseBarry · 22-02-2011 11:05pm

djpbarry wrote: »

You're missing the point. If I build myself a wind turbine, I don't need to build a "back-up" generator alongside and factor in the associated expense into a cost-benefit analysis - the "back-up" already exists. The only costs I need to consider are the cost of installing the turbine versus the likely cost of electricity on the national grid over the turbine's lifetime - there are no other "hidden" costs that I am omitting from my (admittedly slightly simplified) analysis.

I agree. there is no need to "build" a back up generator, as it already exists from the national grid.

Ghost Estate · 24-02-2011 5:38pm

If you install a wind turbine you draw less power from the national grid

If you switch off a few lights you draw less power from the national grid

The grid sees no difference between the two above. It is completely oblivious to if someone switched off an electric heater or if a wind turbine kicked in.

If you draw less power from the national grid less fuel is burnt.

If for some reason the power stations on the national grid decide to keep burning the same amount of fuel regardless of the load the frequency and voltage of the mains will increase and this will cause problems if it goes too high.

To say there is no point in installing a wind turbine because it wont make a difference is to say you might as well leave all the lights on and everything else because it won't make a difference

MalteseBarry · 24-02-2011 5:59pm

Ghost Estate wrote: »

If for some reason the power stations on the national grid decide to keep burning the same amount of fuel regardless of the load the frequency and voltage of the mains will increase and this will cause problems if it goes too high.

Rather like your statement elsewhere that oil burners are all kerosene, (not true), this statement shows such a lack of understanding of how a modern electricity provider works, that i can only assume you believe it to be true, and are in the habit of stating things as facts because you believe them, rather than on facts.

Chinese pay toxic price for a green world

Comments